T1B

Softball Bat wrote:Don GAVE UP the "war games".

Buttsspray wrote:Tardt - have you ANY fucking idea how silly you look posting MSNBC videos up on the board?

Joe in PB wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:Don GAVE UP the "war games".

Do you think that actually matters? War games happen all the time in some fashion, not to mention South Korea and the Americans Army there would be in serious trouble in a matter of days without major air support from the Navy and Air Force. The 30k American troops are insurance, not a serious threat to repel the NK Army. If they were to get wiped out the nukes might really fly. Not that it would matter for you, as you would likely have a North Korean bayonet stuck in your chest before then.

Hard to believe you'd be totally negative about this, but would have been in agreement with Reagan's move with Gorbachev, before the deal happened.

Softball Bat wrote:
the U.S. and SK will stop their "provocative" military exercises, which are done as DEFENSE prep, btw, because of a highly irrational enemy neighbor to the north.

Left Seater wrote:Why do you Trump haters and Hillary ball lickers want to grade this today? Let history decide if this was productive or not.

When compared to the bar President Hussein set where we give cash to rouge nuclear countries, this can only be viewed as a win. However since that was such a poor deal we should wait and let history decide.

"I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey I was wrong,'" Trump said at a press conference after his historic meeting with Kim.

"I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse," Trump added.

S_M wrote:The Singapore deal on the other hand contains absolutely no details and methods for verification other than "he said he would."

Softball Bat wrote:The truth of the matter is that it was Trump who was desperate to make a deal.
Such an individual normally gets rolled.

NK has been hostile, beligerant, and dangerous.

Phibes wrote:I'd argue that, anything they've done is reactive rather than pro-active.

Papa Willie wrote:I knew that 'tardt & Screwy were going to melt over this. I just didn't think it would be this bad... Wow.

Dr_Phibes wrote:More history students, less lawyers - better to understand a situation than to make one.

What's gone on there for last half-century is remarkable.

Goober McTuber wrote: Whenever you are getting hit left and right with cold hard facts, you go to your "melt" card. Sorry, tubster, but pops and Screwy are absolutely on point on this one. Trump is shitting on all of our allies while lovingly polishing the knobs of two dictators.

Softball Bat wrote:.....there has been a horrific humanitarian crisis going on in NK for decades.
People being starved, murdered, oppressed, abused, etc.

Arch Angel wrote:Screwy without a doubt is the dumbest motherfucker on this board. Softball is catching up quickly though and could overtake him in the Dumbest Poster of the year award we give out.

They suck Liberal news like it is their daily milk from a DDDD tit nipple.

Gawd, you two please grow a new brain because you guys are truly what the word "Sheeple" on how it was created.

Donald sucks, yes, he does, but you guys trying to make him worse is not helping your position, it is like a vendetta and make you post stupid shit. Oh shit, I forgot, you are stupid people and post stupid shit, your MO.

AA wrote:Screwy without a doubt is the dumbest motherfucker on this board. Softball is catching up quickly though and could overtake him in the Dumbest Poster of the year award we give out.

They suck Liberal news like it is their daily milk from a DDDD tit nipple.

Gawd, you two please grow a new brain because you guys are truly what the word "Sheeple" on how it was created.

Donald sucks, yes, he does, but you guys trying to make him worse is not helping your position, it is like a vendetta and make you post stupid shit. Oh shit, I forgot, you are stupid people and post stupid shit, your MO.

Papa Willie wrote: Obama!!...Hillary!!!...Benghazi!!!!!!!!!

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:I knew that 'tardt & Screwy were going to melt over this. I just didn't think it would be this bad... Wow.

Whenever you are getting hit left and right with cold hard facts, you go to your "melt" card. Sorry, tubster, but pops and Screwy are absolutely on point on this one. Trump is shitting on all of our allies while lovingly polishing the knobs of two dictators.

They're not on point with anything. It only goes to prove that you cock-slurping liberals are still so butt-hurt over the election (almost 2 years ago now), that you're okay with getting nuked as long as you get to say "I told you so".

As soon as Kim does do something - like nuke somebody - it'll be the happiest day of your lives.

Sirfindafold wrote:

l to r: McGoober, T$, Kim

Regression toward the mean’
The Trump-Kim summit marks a return to engagement, but it’s not a breakthrough.
PRESIDENT TRUMP and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the signing ceremony
closing their Singapore summit. (Evan Vucci Associated Press)

By Joshua Pollack

The outcome of the Donald Trump-Kim Jong Un summit in Singapore brings to mind
the old Army quip: “Hurry up and wait.”

The urgency of holding a meeting between the top leaders of North Korea and the
United States, rather than diplomatic professionals, is perhaps best explained
by the personality and mind-set of our first reality TV star president. The
freshly signed joint statement of this “epochal event” — not merely historic,
mind you, but epochal — is roughly what could be expected to emerge from the
preceding two weeks or so of working-level talks. Vague and broad, it endorses a
set of “mutual confidence building” steps, ending with a promise to continue
working out the details. It promises a return to diplomatic engagement, but it’s
not any sort of breakthrough.

Set aside whether a presidential meeting was needed to reach this point. What
exactly does the joint statement say? How does it stack up against the two
countries’ on-again, off-again diplomatic commitments over the past
quarter-century, and what does it really mean?

After the throat-clearing section at the top, the statement boils down to four
points. The first is a commitment to “establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in
accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and
prosperity.”

This is a vow that Washington and Pyongyang renew about every five to six years.
The October 1994 Agreed Framework pledged to “move toward full normalization of
political and economic relations.” The Joint Communique signed at the White
House in October 2000 promised to “make every effort in the future to build a
new relationship free from past enmity.” The September 2005 Joint Statement of
the Six-Party Talks concluded in Beijing contained an undertaking for the two
states “to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together, and take
steps to normalize their relations.” The February 2012 “Leap Day Deal” contained
an American undertaking “to take steps to improve our bilateral relationship in
the spirit of mutual respect for sovereignty and equality.”

The second point is a commitment to “join their efforts to build a lasting and
stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.”

The term “peace regime” is a familiar bit of Korea-specific diplomatese, meaning
the replacement of the Korean War Armistice with something more permanent,
probably in the form of an agreement between the two Koreas, the United States
and China, to be endorsed in a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
The October 2000 Joint Communique discussed how to “formally end the Korean War
by replacing the 1953 Armistice Agreement with permanent peace arrangements.”
The September 2005 Joint Statement and a subsequent February 2007 agreement
proposed the separate negotiation of “a permanent peace regime on the Korean
Peninsula.” The same sentiment appeared in the declaration of the second summit
meeting of the two Koreas, held in October 2007, which recognized “the need to
end the current armistice regime and build a permanent peace regime.” The
“Panmunjom Declaration” issued in April after Kim met with Moon Jae-in in the
third such summit called for “turning the armistice into a peace treaty, and
establishing a permanent and solid peace regime.“

The third point in the Trump-Kim statement finally gets to the heart of things
from the U.S. perspective. It is almost a direct quote from the April meeting:
“[T]he DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula.”

The phrase “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” goes all the way back to a
declaration by the two Koreas signed in January 1992 and periodically
reaffirmed. The September 2005 Joint Statement introduced a new twist, calling
for “the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful
manner.” The Panmunjom Declaration doesn’t include “verifiable,” but cites “the
common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free
Korean Peninsula.”

The current repetition of “complete denuclearization” seems to fall somewhat
short of the variation lately demanded by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: the
“complete and verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula.”

The fourth point is a commitment “to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the
immediate repatriation of those already identified.” Joint U.S.-North Korean
searches for the remains of the Korean War dead took place between 1996 and
2005. The resumption of this practice is overdue and will certainly contribute
to goodwill.

The Trump-Kim Joint Statement contains little that can be called new. It marks
what statisticians call “regression toward the mean”— the tendency for extreme
conditions to give way to the familiar over time. And that’s good. Even if a
theatrical summit meeting wasn’t really needed, diplomacy is now back on track.
With patience and modest expectations, progress is possible.

Joshua Pollack is a senior research associate at the Middlebury Institute of
International Studies at Monterey and editor of the Nonproliferation Review.
Sent from my iPhone

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:

l to r: McGoober, T$, Kim

OK, that's kind of funny.

Papa Willie wrote:Pretty much how all normal people look at liberals.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Pretty much how all normal people look at liberals.

What would you know about normal people, you shitdick-gobbling fuck-nozzle.

Heartoverlittlenubatbeachpictureguy says what?

Softball Bat wrote:there has been a horrific humanitarian crisis going on in NK for decades.
People being starved, murdered, oppressed, abused, etc.

It is a hard sell to blame all of that on the oppressive imperialists.

That's just some sick fucks who went off the rails and continued to stay off the rails.

The forced worship of the Kim family, and all of that.

C'mon now.

Dr_Phibes wrote: The Soviet Union did that once - in the Berlin blockade and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Mikey wrote:I'll take a wait and see attitude before I decide if it's worth throwing another of our longtime allies under the bus so the Donald can claim a Nobel Peace Prize.